Azinal Sdn Bhd v Jannath Gani & 2 Ors (and 3 Other Appeals) [2024] 4 AMR 121, CA

Civil procedure – Courts – Jurisdiction – High Court dismissed application to strike out statement of claim – Appeal filed to Court of Appeal – Preliminary objection raised against said appeal for being incompetent by reason of recent inclusion of s 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("the CJA") – Whether High Court's decision deemed non-appealable – Whether amendment of s 68(1) of the CJA applied retrospectively – Whether right of appeal to Court of Appeal a vested right – Whether infringed – Whether appeal incompetent and must be struck out in limine – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 67, 68(1), (1)(f) – Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2022

Civil procedure – Striking out – Appeal – High Court dismissed application to strike out statement of claim – Appeal filed to Court of Appeal – Preliminary objection raised against appeal for being incompetent by reason of recent inclusion of s 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("the CJA") – Whether High Court's decision deemed non-appealable – Whether amendment of s 68(1) of the CJA applied retrospectively – Whether right of appeal to Court of Appeal a vested right – Whether infringed – Whether appeal incompetent and must be struck out in limine – Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 67, 68(1), (1)(f) – Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2022

Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang [2024] 4 AMR 138, HC

Administrative law – Remedies – Judicial review – Assessment of damages – Cancellation of permit initially granted to run hotel quashed by High Court – Damages to be assessed – Whether applicants proved overall quantum of damages sought – Whether running business as "hotel" or "homestay" relevant – Whether applicants' revenue post cancellation of permit ought to be deducted from damages – Whether respondent's conduct warranted exemplary damages – Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g)

Sin Kheng Hooi v Govindaraju s/o Kuppusamy (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya G Raju & Co) [2024] 4 AMR 168, HC

Professions – Advocates and solicitors – Negligence – Claim for damages – Alleged legal advice resulted in wrongful entry of private caveat leading to losses and bankruptcy of plaintiff – Caveat removed on October 1, 2015 – Suit for negligence filed in June 2022 – Whether suit time-barred under s 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 – Whether plaintiff lacked locus standi for failure to obtain sanction of Director General of Insolvency prior to commencement of suit – Whether solicitor negligent – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages – Insolvency Act 1967, s 38(1)(a) – Limitation Act 1953, s 6

Tort – Negligence – Breach of duty – Solicitor-client relationship – Alleged legal advice resulted in wrongful entry of private caveat leading to losses and bankruptcy of plaintiff – Caveat removed on October 1, 2015 – Suit for negligence filed in June 2022 – Whether suit time-barred under s 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 – Whether plaintiff lacked locus standi for failure to obtain sanction of Director General of Insolvency prior to commencement of suit – Whether solicitor negligent – Whether plaintiff entitled to damages – Insolvency Act 1967, s 38(1)(a) – Limitation Act 1953, s 6

Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd v Hatching Education Group Sdn Bhd [2024] 4 AMR 189, HC

Contract – Breach – Tenancy agreement – Damages – Tenant failed to procure permission for its business due to renovation of premises done by landlord without local authority's approval – Rent paid for period of possession of premises prior to termination of agreement by tenant – Whether agreement void for contravention of various provisions of law – Whether contract breached by landlord or tenant – Whether tenant entitled to terminate agreement – Whether landlord liable to return rent payments paid by tenant – Contracts Act 1950, s 66 – Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974

Yudishthiran a/l Doraisamy v Sugumaran a/l Sinnasamy & 6 Ors (No. 2) [2024] 4 AMR 200, HC

Company law – Remedy in cases of oppression – Share buy out – Oppression against minority shareholder established – Relief granted for majority shareholders to buy out minority shareholder's shares – Significant disparity in valuation of shares by experts appointed by court and parties – Appropriate basis to determine fair value of shares – Whether majority shareholders could refuse or reject order to purchase minority shareholder's shares by reason of insufficient of funds

Company law – Shares – Valuation – Oppression against minority shareholder established – Relief granted for majority shareholders to buy out minority shareholder's shares – Significant disparity in valuation of shares by experts appointed by court and parties – Appropriate basis to determine fair value of shares – Whether majority shareholders could refuse or reject order to purchase minority shareholder's shares by reason of insufficient of funds